Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM (Page 5)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 5
 
 
2010-06-23 10:36 AM
in reply to: #2938580

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

2010-06-23 10:39 AM
in reply to: #2937490

Expert
608
500100
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
lengthcroft - 2010-06-22 5:09 PM Jeez, I knew my initial post would create a bit of a debate, but I didn't expect as many posts as that! It's good to see all the different points of view.

I have to say that ultimately my reasons for wanting a longer swim are entirely selfish, as I'm a very strong swimmer and pretty poor at the other two.


That means your a good swimmer and a bad triathlete.

My swim coach has swam a 70.3 race in 22 min.  If you can beat most of the pros by minutes it an advantage for anybody. 
2010-06-23 10:52 AM
in reply to: #2938795

Veteran
197
100252525
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
xcrunner2010 - 2010-06-23 11:39 AM
lengthcroft - 2010-06-22 5:09 PM Jeez, I knew my initial post would create a bit of a debate, but I didn't expect as many posts as that! It's good to see all the different points of view.

I have to say that ultimately my reasons for wanting a longer swim are entirely selfish, as I'm a very strong swimmer and pretty poor at the other two.


That means your a good swimmer and a bad triathlete.

My swim coach has swam a 70.3 race in 22 min.  If you can beat most of the pros by minutes it an advantage for anybody. 


That's me!!

Well, I don't want to call anyone a bad triathlete (even a sprint distance MOP guy like me), but I know I am a better swimmer than I am a runner, which (of course) means my overall triathlon times suffer.

Of course, I am not a HIM or an IM guy - I'm just a sprint guy planning on doing an Olympic - and I do this for fun and to somewhat keep in shape. Obviously, if I ever wanted to be a "good" triathlete, I would need to run a whole lot faster than I do. Oh well, in the meantime I'll just continue to have fun doin' what I', doin'!
2010-06-23 11:47 AM
in reply to: #2937309

Expert
1121
1000100
Chicago
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
tealeaf - 2010-06-22 3:31 PM
Ershk - 2010-06-22 4:20 PM

A second is a second (or 1/60th of a minute, if you prefer), regardless of what part of the race it comes from.  At the several races I've done so far, I've been a FOP swimmer.  Certainly not the fastest out there, but fast enough to come out of the water with a time advantage over most of the other racers.  Ask the four people who finished right behind me whether they think the swim was irrelevant.  I finished 35th overall (small race):

36th place - I had 12 second lead on the swim and finshed 3 seconds ahead of them.
37th place - I had 42 second lead on the swim and finished 9 seconds ahead of them.
38th place - [must have had a chip problem; no swim time, but we were about the same on bike and transitions, and she left me in the dust on the run . . . best guess is that my swim was about a minute faster and I finished 34 seconds ahead of them].
39th place - I had a 5 minute lead on the swim and finished 29 seconds ahead of them (i.e., they kicked my a$$ on the bike and run, but finished behind me)



Yes, I'm sure that 37th place person is saying to himself, "man, if I had only finished the swim 10 seconds faster I would have come in 35th. 

I dunno... for FOP, I could see this.  For 35th through 38th place?  Notsomuch.  And this is coming from someone who is all too familiar with the MOP.
 


I hear ya.  I guess it's a personal reaction to where you finish.  I'm improving in tri's and don't expect to be on the podium, but I'm still competitive once I get out to race.  I always wind up looking at the times that were within spitting distance ahead of me and can't help but look through my race to find places where I could have shaved seconds here and there.  Maybe that's just me.
2010-06-23 12:32 PM
in reply to: #2936469

Member
125
10025
San Diego
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
Good topic and an old one =)

I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it.

I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles).  I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish!

For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half.

Have fun out there!

-j

2010-06-23 1:03 PM
in reply to: #2939159

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

2010-06-23 2:52 PM
in reply to: #2939258

Master
2094
2000252525
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
PennState - 2010-06-23 2:03 PM
jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 1:32 PM Good topic and an old one =)

I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it.

I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles).  I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish!

For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half.

Have fun out there!

-j

I think that would actually be a better overall test of SBR fitness than the existing model, but as has been said WTC won't be doing this soon for multiple reasons



Especially not until they go full metric
2010-06-23 3:18 PM
in reply to: #2939546

Expert
608
500100
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
pschriver - 2010-06-23 2:52 PM
PennState - 2010-06-23 2:03 PM
jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 1:32 PM Good topic and an old one =)

I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it.

I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles).  I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish!

For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half.

Have fun out there!



-j

I think that would actually be a better overall test of SBR fitness than the existing model, but as has been said WTC won't be doing this soon for multiple reasons



Especially not until they go full metric


HAHA yes...response to the 2.5k / 80k / 20k

Olympic distance is 1.5k/40k/10k  THIS is even more swimming(than the other events) than what your ideal "HIM / IM" is so i don't know what your complaining about.
2010-06-23 3:46 PM
in reply to: #2939159

Expert
2547
200050025
The Woodlands, TX
Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM
jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 12:32 PM Good topic and an old one =)

I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it.

I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles).  I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish!

For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half.

Have fun out there!

-j



I think I would be pretty tough to beat in a 10mile/10mile/10mile race. Of course I would probably be the only one entered...
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Rss Feed  
 
 
of 5